Zimmerman's Motion to Set Bondhttp://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Motion%20to%20Set%20Reasonable%20Bond.pdf (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Motion%20to%20Set%20Reasonable%20Bond.pdf)

Just saw that article (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-03/news/os-george-zimmerman-no-bond-decision-20120703_1_bond-motion-county-courthouse-teenager) about ruling Thursday. He said he's started writing the order. If he was going to let him out, why not rule orally, and follow with a written ruling? It sounds like he's writing carefully because he knows his order will be appealed. Hope I'm wrong.

I think he should stay in, and considering it was his silence at question, as to his respect for the integrity of the court, I think silence was entirely the wrong approach. I wonder if it was GZ or O'Mara that decided that, exactly... I imagine O'Mara but that would mean he doesn't trust GZ at all... if O'Mara has stuck to how they didn't really have a nefarious plan but more just a random scheme, then the prosecutors could only have asked him about that, yes? That's bad if you can't trust a self-defense defendant to speak for themselves about apparent misconduct on his part.

Just saw that article (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-03/news/os-george-zimmerman-no-bond-decision-20120703_1_bond-motion-county-courthouse-teenager) about ruling Thursday. He said he's started writing the order. If he was going to let him out, why not rule orally, and follow with a written ruling? It sounds like he's writing carefully because he knows his order will be appealed. Hope I'm wrong.

Maybe, because the prosecution and the media would start howling so it would be better to have his reasons for granting bond in writing and on the record without any delay.

O'mara did a great job at the hearing. He tore the Judge's"Strong evidence" to pieces and showed the true aspects of the case which he may or may not already been aware of.

George didn't lie or disrespect the court, He just invoked his right to remain silent, which he has every right to do. His wife on the other hand has been charged with perjury and she is innocent until proven guilty.

The defense has shown the judge sufficient evidence to why Zimmerman was not a flight risk and why he in fact did deserve bond. The judge wasn't officially aware that George had been assaulted to the extent that he had or that there was opposition to whose voice was screaming for help on the 911 calls.

I can't wait to read his decision and see the justifications that he gives for the decision he makes.

So, does the state really think Zimmerman is a flight risk, or do they just want to dick him around to keep up the pressure to take a plea bargain?

"Before finding someone guilty, the rules of criminal procedure require a hugely costly trial. Bail deprives people of their freedom no less than a post-trial sentence, but with the barest minimum of inquiry."

So, does the state really think Zimmerman is a flight risk, or do they just want to dick him around to keep up the pressure to take a plea bargain?

If they deny him bond, O'mara will make a play for immunity. If that doesn't work, Zimmerman will have no choice but to stay in jail or take a plea. I can't see him taking a plea. You know though, If he's found innocent by a jury, The state is going to pay for keeping him in jail. I see all kinds of civil cases in the future of the parties involved.

If they deny him bond, O'mara will make a play for immunity. If that doesn't work, Zimmerman will have no choice but to stay in jail or take a plea. I can't see him taking a plea. You know though, If he's found innocent by a jury, The state is going to pay for keeping him in jail. I see all kinds of civil cases in the future of the parties involved.

If Judge Lester denies Zimmerman bond, O'Mara will probably file a Habeas Corpus petition with the 5th District Court of Appeals. I hope O'Mara is already working on it, because I have a bad feeling it will be needed. I wish it were the 4th district instead of the 5th. The 4th district court seems to be more in tune with the Florida supreme court's opinions on bond issues. In State v. Paul, the supreme court approved of the 4th DCA's decision in Paul v. Jenne, and disapproved of the 5th DCA's decision in Gardner v. Murphy. Later in State v. Blair, the court approved of the 4th DCA's decision in Blair v. State, and chided the 5th DCA for ignoring Paul in its decision in Ricks v. State. I recall reading several other state supreme court decisions in which a split between the 4th and 5th district courts was decided in favor of the 4th district. I don't trust the 5th DCA to follow Paul.

If Judge Lester denies Zimmerman bond, O'Mara will probably file a Habeas Corpus petition with the 5th District Court of Appeals. I hope O'Mara is already working on it, because I have a bad feeling it will be needed. I wish it were the 4th district instead of the 5th.

It's tough to compose a rebuttal in advance of seeing the order. But, O'Mara can prepare himself by studying the relevant case law in the 5th district, as well as of the Supreme Court of Florida.

O'Mara is doing a piss poor job of trying this case in the public eye, by educating the public of FL law on bail. Crump's team is having press articles that cause the reader to think that defendant's lack of respect for the court results in a court being unable to decide a case fairly under the law, so defendant's lack of respect for the court become per se justification for keeping him in jail.

I'm of a mind that O'Mara may be incompetent on the narrow issue of the right to be free on bail; either that, or he is part of the team that is putting the screws to Zimmerman to keep the mob placated; just that he wouldn;t tighten the screws quite as far.

It's tough to compose a rebuttal in advance of seeing the order. But, O'Mara can prepare himself by studying the relevant case law in the 5th district, as well as of the Supreme Court of Florida.

O'Mara is doing a piss poor job of trying this case in the public eye, by educating the public of FL law on bail. Crump's team is having press articles that cause the reader to think that defendant's lack of respect for the court results in a court being unable to decide a case fairly under the law, so defendant's lack of respect for the court become per se justification for keeping him in jail.

I'm of a mind that O'Mara may be incompetent on the narrow issue of the right to be free on bail; either that, or he is part of the team that is putting the screws to Zimmerman to keep the mob placated; just that he wouldn;t tighten the screws quite as far.

It seems O'mara is playing it a little closer to the hip right now. I have a feeling that he'll stay calm and cool until he brings out the big guns. He's by no means a push over and we will see a good defense from him.

It seems O'mara is playing it a little closer to the hip right now. I have a feeling that he'll stay calm and cool until he brings out the big guns. He's by no means a push over and we will see a good defense from him.

Did you just mangle together "closer to the vest" with "shoot from the hip"?

I'm of a mind that O'Mara may be incompetent on the narrow issue of the right to be free on bail

I don't think we really know yet how well O'Mara will do if bail's denied. The legal argument in the motion for a reasonable bond was bare-boned to say the least, just mentioning the Florida constitution, State v. Paul, and section 907.041, without further explanation. I believe that may be intentional -- sort of "a word to the wise," or "I know the law, you know the law, and you know I know the law." In both bond hearings, O'Mara proceeded in a manner that surprised a lot of court observers. I hope if bond is denied, he might have another surprise in store, and think he just might.

It might be worse for Zimmerman if Judge Lester sets the bond at an amount just on the edge of unreasonable rather than denies it entirely. I think the 5th DCA would have to ignore Paul to uphold a denial. I doubt they would, though they have done so in the past.

I think he should stay in, and considering it was his silence at question, as to his respect for the integrity of the court, I think silence was entirely the wrong approach. I wonder if it was GZ or O'Mara that decided that, exactly... I imagine O'Mara but that would mean he doesn't trust GZ at all... if O'Mara has stuck to how they didn't really have a nefarious plan but more just a random scheme, then the prosecutors could only have asked him about that, yes? That's bad if you can't trust a self-defense defendant to speak for themselves about apparent misconduct on his part.

I know we can all sit around here and talk about the integrity and respect for the court. Stuff like that, But I heard it with my own ears George told his wife to pray and tell the truth. You heard it too. Now, I respect the guy because he didn't sell out his wife. He was thinking about her, as he should have been, and didn't worry about the integrity of the court as much as he needed to.

Let's be honest, He shows where his loyalties lie and it seems to me those loyalties fall in the right spot.

Does that mean that his wife didn't possibly perjure herself, no. That's for a court to decide though and she's innocent until proven guilty, just like every American charged with a crime.

Above it was said that Shelly Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty of perjury. Not quite... she is either innocent or guilty in fact, right now... the legal system will treat her as under suspicion and not as if guilty... but the evidence is before us. You can't pretend she's officially innocent until her case, you can claim she will exonerated as innocent, and I would disagree. I'm not feeling a lot of Trayvon wasn't proved guilty and is innocent vibes in this.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.

Above it was said that Shelly Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty of perjury. Not quite... she is either innocent or guilty in fact, right now... the legal system will treat her as under suspicion and not as if guilty... but the evidence is before us. You can't pretend she's officially innocent until her case, you can claim she will exonerated as innocent, and I would disagree. I'm not feeling a lot of Trayvon wasn't proved guilty and is innocent vibes in this.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.

Semantics.

He didn't hit the ATF officer, He pushed him. He wouldn't have made that mistake if not for the fact that the person was undercover and failed to identify himself in the situation. Hasn't that already been discussed in great detail on the YT channels?

Who said that Trayvon was convicted of anything? Do you think you have proven that he didn't start the fight and if so how?

Above it was said that Shelly Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty of perjury. Not quite... she is either innocent or guilty in fact, right now... the legal system will treat her as under suspicion and not as if guilty... but the evidence is before us. You can't pretend she's officially innocent until her case, you can claim she will exonerated as innocent, and I would disagree. I'm not feeling a lot of Trayvon wasn't proved guilty and is innocent vibes in this.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.

Your comments are all over the place. How does one start with so many facts being twisted in the first place. Perhaps with Shellie Zimmerman.

I think Jeralyn has already addressed this issue, and I know it has been addressed elsewhere, that is the State, in its charging document, and I might add in its document that saw the bond being revoked, omitted a portion of the transcript at the bond hearing. In the omitted portion of the transcript, Shellie responded to a question about what was currently in the account, and she referred BDLR to her brother-in-law. It was the "Persecutor" who failed to call on Robert Zimmerman jr. at that point in time. In other words, it looks like the State was being deceptive when it blindsided that other hearing on June 1 and the bond was revoked.

As for the second point, the person was an ATF officer. He was not a cop and he was undercover. The story I have read is that Zimmerman was attempting to help a friend who was being manhandled by the undercover ATF officer. I think that the outcome was the anger management course. I am sure that a lot of people find themselves in the same kind of hot water for pretty much the same reason - helping a friend in trouble.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.

Wrong again, Pyrro. GZ has never been convicted of anything. His charge was reduced and then referred to pre-trial diversion and dismissed after he completed an anger management course. He was never found guilty, he did not plead guilty and was not convicted of anything. Perhaps your fellow poster somewhere is thinking of a deferred judgment. That's not the same as pre-trial diversion. GZ's case was sent to pre-trial diversion.

As for Shellie, she is indeed presumed innocent and you haven't even heard her defense yet. And she may well have a defense based on the inartful questions the proseuctor asked her.

If you are going to state an opinion, please at least get your facts straight.

If Judge Lester denies Zimmerman bond, O'Mara will probably file a Habeas Corpus petition with the 5th District Court of Appeals. I hope O'Mara is already working on it, because I have a bad feeling it will be needed.

I agree that should be the next step, but I am thinking that if Lester denies bond premised on the misrepresentations that were made, then O'Mara would be well-advised to associate or consult with other counsel, at a minimum. There is a significant potential conflict-of-interest burbling to the surface, and I honestly don't see how he can properly represent his client in an appellate proceeding where the issue of his own effectiveness at the trial level might be pivotal.

Quite simply, we don't know what discussions or advice took place between O'Mara and his client, & his client's wife, prior to the initial bail hearing. But, if bail is denied, that may be a very important factor down the line in terms of the defendant's ability to get the decision reversed.

Expy, Good to see you over here. I agree with your post about O'Mara being in a delicate position -- he's really a witness to everything, and his credibility is also a factor. The judge even said at the April 20 hearing he doesn't doubt for a second what O'Mara said about how he came to learn about the money. I've thought he has been wearing two hats in this bond issue since the night he went on CNN to disclose his client's failure to tell him about it, before he even told the court.

I doubt he'll see that way though-- maybe he has his client's consent in writing and a statement agreeing that his version is correct. But it's been a thorny issue for me all along.

I agree that should be the next step, but I am thinking that if Lester denies bond premised on the misrepresentations that were made, then O'Mara would be well-advised to associate or consult with other counsel, at a minimum.

I, too, sometimes wonder whether O'Mara's interest in protecting his own reputation works at cross-purposes to representing Zimmerman's best interests. Nevertheless, I think the argument for bail is legal, not factual. Under Florida's constitution, statutes, and court rules, the alleged misrepresentations do not provide a valid basis for denying bond.

I, too, sometimes wonder whether O'Mara's interest in protecting his own reputation works at cross-purposes to representing Zimmerman's best interests. Nevertheless, I think the argument for bail is legal, not factual. Under Florida's constitution, statutes, and court rules, the alleged misrepresentations do not provide a valid basis for denying bond.

I agree in theory, but as a practical matter the facts do count -- and of course it depends a lot on what Judge Lester writes in an opinion.

If the judge denies bail, then I would expect to see him writing a opinion that muddies the waters somewhat by emphasizing the other issues beyond the misrepresentations, but also to come down very strong on how the misrepresentations as to finances undermine trustworthiness in a way that shows disrespect for the court and makes him feel that Zimmerman would be a flight risk. (I'm not saying I agree with that argument -- that's just what I would expect to see the Judge write).

There's an old saying: bad facts make bad law. The problem is that sometimes appellate decision are results oriented. Appeals courts sometimes struggle to come to a resolution that seems to defy precedent--- even if they have to carve out a new legal exception or rationale. So if Judge Lester writes an opinion that paints Zimmerman's role in a particularly negative way, that could very well impact the decision of reviewing courts.

I can't disagree with that; and though I'm less certain than cboldt of O'Mara's weakness in handling the bond issue, I suspect there are appellate specialists who could do a better job anyway.

I also feel that O'Mara made significant mistakes in the way he handled the bond application, though I believe for different than cboldt. I just feel that the initial April 20th hearing was bungled through the attorney's (apparent) failure to fully document and corroborate facts before putting on a witness to testify to those facts, and failure to properly interview & prepare that witness for the questions she would be asked.

Another potential advantage to having someone else handle an appeal of the bond decision is that if Judge Lester is thin skinned, he might be less inclined to hold O'Mara responsible for any pointed attacks on his legal reasoning. Perhaps that's unfair to the judge, but I think not allowing O'Mara time to prepare for the revocation hearing, and then scheduling the next bond hearing almost a month later, suggests a certain degree of pettiness.

In O'Mara's (partial) defense, I will say that the issue of a large, newly-created defense fund is something that O'Mara almost certainly never encountered before.

He knew there was a web site and a fund. It was his responsibility to verify what was in that fund before making representations to the court about finances.

If there was little or no money coming through the web site, knowing that -- and being able to verify that -- would have also been valuable. He had to anticipate that the prosecution would raise questions about the fund in response to any representation about finances.

It's a lawyer's job to anticipate this sort of thing. This is the sort of mistake that a newby lawyer might make -- someone fresh out of law school without a whole lot of courtroom experience -- but anyone with significant trial experience has either had the experience of having testimony blow up when opposing counsel produces documentation... or seen it happen to someone else.

If a client or family member makes a representations about something that can be easily documented -- whether its money, or a statement about where they were at a particular time -- the attorney needs to do his homework and get the documentation in hand before putting that person in the position of giving sworn testimony.

I would find it very difficult to believe that O'Mara or any other experienced lawyer hasn't had a client lie to him in the past, especially when it comes to money.

I agree in theory, but as a practical matter the facts do count -- and of course it depends a lot on what Judge Lester writes in an opinion.

If the judge denies bail, then I would expect to see him writing a opinion that muddies the waters somewhat by emphasizing the other issues beyond the misrepresentations, but also to come down very strong on how the misrepresentations as to finances undermine trustworthiness in a way that shows disrespect for the court and makes him feel that Zimmerman would be a flight risk. (I'm not saying I agree with that argument -- that's just what I would expect to see the Judge write).

There's an old saying: bad facts make bad law. The problem is that sometimes appellate decision are results oriented. Appeals courts sometimes struggle to come to a resolution that seems to defy precedent--- even if they have to carve out a new legal exception or rationale. So if Judge Lester writes an opinion that paints Zimmerman's role in a particularly negative way, that could very well impact the decision of reviewing courts.

Someone needs to explain to the judge the difference between "flaunt" and "flout".

Assuming Rene Stutzman quoted him correctly in that article.

Someone should also explain to him that once the money was donated, it was no longer "other people's money".

Not sure what good it does to keep him from having a bank account. I doubt PayPal would be willing to let anything be linked to it. I also doubt he'd have anything to put into it, as his only income source is the donations to the website that go into the trustee operated account.

"Nothing presented which indicates he was misled into believing he would not be charged with a crime"

Nothing presented to Lester. O'Mara didn't do enough of an evidence dump last week. He should have taken days, if that's what it took to inform Lester. What about the town of Sanford press release that stated there was no probable cause? Might that not go to Zimmerman believing he would not be charged with a crime?

This case is a great lesson on the fundamental fairness of the courts. Hint - they aren't fair, and their mission is not justice.

The final sentence on page 6 gives me issue. The judge -knows- that Mr. Zimmerman turned his passport and the money over to Mr. O'Mara on his own accord. He didn't have to, he chose to. So he "thwarted" his own plans?

Yeah, last time he was allowed to hide out from the death threats out of state.

This time, Lester suggests at (e), that if the mob had mounted a credible threat of violence, that the release of Zimmerman would have posed a danger to the community. IOW, even if Zimmerman is perfectly innocent, he should be kept in detention if any other member of the public would perpetrate a dangerous or illegal act if Zimmerman was to be released.

The implications of this motion suggest that George would be better off staying in jail.

A. His safety is now at risk because he can't leave the county, though he shouldn't have to.

B. Lester all but told the prosecution that they should file Perjury charges against Zimmerman to have his bond revoked, if he posts bond. Remember, If any charges, whether they are true or not, are filed against George it revokes this bond order.

C. The 10% needed to pay a bondsman is a lot of money to gamble with. That could pay the expenses incurred for expert witnesses, which will be needed, whether it's a SYG hearing or a trial.

When he revoked bond and now, Lester has made statements that have poisoned the jury pool and impede GZ from receiving a fair trial. I've never seen anything like this before.

Agreed. How can he be angry that the integrity of his court has been questioned when he clearly has none.

According to the order, There's evidence that George was planning on fleeing. Where the hell does it get that information from? George immediately turned over the funds and his passport. Oh, It was because of the monitoring device... Because there's no way to cut that off? LMAO criminals do it all the time. So where is the intent to flee?

B. Lester all but told the prosecution that they should file Perjury charges against Zimmerman to have his bond revoked, if he posts bond. Remember, If any charges, whether they are true or not, are filed against George it revokes this bond order.

What's you're take on this and did I forget anything?

Lester can't use the potted palm moment as a crime while on release. It can't be sued for another bail revocation. Nevermind, let me rephrase that. The law doesn't allow it to be used to impose a no-bond status. I keep forgetting that Lester doesn't have to follow the law, common sense, or rules of logic.

You do have a point. Lester might be daring Zimmerman to come out and face mob justice.

Lester can't use the potted palm moment as a crime while on release. It can't be sued for another bail revocation. Nevermind, let me rephrase that. The law doesn't allow it to be used to impose a no-bond status. I keep forgetting that Lester doesn't have to follow the law, common sense, or rules of logic.

You do have a point. Lester might be daring Zimmerman to come out and face mob justice.

If a person on Bond is charged with an additional crime, after being released, that usually creates a higher risk of flight, in the eyes of the prosecution. The prosecution would no doubt file a motion to revoke bond based on new charges. Further more, I believe Lester ordered George to stay in Seminole county to make it easier for him to be picked up and served with new charges.

There is clearly an issue with Lester's frame of mind. How does he figure that no evidence was presented to him that proved George acted in self-defense, but with the weak affidavit with no factual basis Lester called Strong evidence to support second degree murder?

If a person on Bond is charged with an additional crime, after being released, that usually creates a higher risk of flight, in the eyes of the prosecution. The prosecution would no doubt file a motion to revoke bond based on new charges. Further more, I believe Lester ordered George to stay in Seminole county to make it easier for him to be picked up and served with new charges.

There is clearly an issue with Lester's frame of mind. How does he figure that no evidence was presented to him that proved George acted in self-defense, but with the weak affidavit with no factual basis Lester called Strong evidence to support second degree murder?

FL Law provides more or less automatic justification for no bond status on a crime committed while on release, 903.0471 or something like that. That would not apply. An additional charge brings additional bond, and the same factors that were brought to bear this time. Lester's already said Zimmerman is in line to be convicted of a crime with a life sentence, that's as stern a penalty encouraging "flight risk" as there is, short of capital punishment.

As for assuming the state's evidence, that's the way the system is rigged. All the rhetoric about defendant's rights is lip service.

I'd still file a 776.032 motion. Lester is not the last word. At this point, I don't think he is able or willing to render a fair ruling; but the quickest way out is 776.032 plus appeal an adverse conclusion. I think the evidence in favor of Zimmerman is that strong, and the state's evidence is that weak.

This time, Lester suggests at (e), that if the mob had mounted a credible threat of violence, that the release of Zimmerman would have posed a danger to the community. IOW, even if Zimmerman is perfectly innocent, he should be kept in detention if any other member of the public would perpetrate a dangerous or illegal act if Zimmerman was to be released.

So all Crump has to do is get his supporters to engage in a little organized, murder and looting and GZ is back in the can?Sharpton never had it so good.

Can a defendant appeal the conditions of bail and do so even if he makes bail?

The first step is to move to have the conditions modified, but the short answer is yes, defendant can appeal the bond conditions. Conditions are supposed to be such to ensure appearance in court, and to provide safety of the community, and no more than that. I think many of the conditions that Lester imposes are done "just because he can," and he likes his power. The 6pm-6an curfew is one, as is the total prohibition on alcoholic beverages, absent any finding that Zimmerman has a substance abuse problem.

The first step is to move to have the conditions modified, but the short answer is yes, defendant can appeal the bond conditions. Conditions are supposed to be such to ensure appearance in court, and to provide safety of the community, and no more than that. I think many of the conditions that Lester imposes are done "just because he can," and he likes his power. The 6pm-6an curfew is one, as is the total prohibition on alcoholic beverages, absent any finding that Zimmerman has a substance abuse problem.

The curfew makes it more difficult to meet with his attys and investigators and prepare for his case and there is no reason for it.

The curfew makes it more difficult to meet with his attys and investigators and prepare for his case and there is no reason for it.

The legal ideal of "free on bail" is to be free. Conditions are imposed in order to ensure appearance (hence the traceability device), to protect the community, and protect judicial impartiality/legal process (no contact with victim or witnesses). DUI offenders are routinely ordered to abstain from alcohol, public safety justification.

I don't think Lester's curfew impedes meeting with O'Mara or investigators, I think it's just an "in your face" encroachment on liberty.

They make some very good points about why the amount that was set for bond is an outrage. I am not in a position to offer any kind of help (as a foreigner I need to keep out of such things), and yes, I know a lot of people were afraid that this whole scenario was nothing more than an attempt to wipe out the defense fund and it seems that people who thought that are correct.

What the site tells me is that there are a lot of expenses ahead which do not include the actual fees to the attorneys.

I remain of the view that the setting of a higher bond at $1,000,000 is unjustified by the facts, and especially the indigent status of the family.

Above it was said that Shelly Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty of perjury. Not quite... she is either innocent or guilty in fact, right now... the legal system will treat her as under suspicion and not as if guilty... but the evidence is before us. You can't pretend she's officially innocent until her case, you can claim she will exonerated as innocent, and I would disagree. I'm not feeling a lot of Trayvon wasn't proved guilty and is innocent vibes in this.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.

In my experience the State only allow pretrial diversion if they have absolutely no case or the defendant is connected.What's your bet?

The only testimony we have - which BTW - is consistant with all witness statements and GZ 's testimony given at risk of witness repudiation shows Zimmerman to be justified,

In my experience the State only allow pretrial diversion if they have absolutely no case or the defendant is connected.What's your bet?

The only testimony we have - which BTW - is consistant with all witness statements and GZ 's testimony given at risk of witness repudiation shows Zimmerman to be justified,

Where is Trayvon on trial?

Doesn't this seem really one sided? Lot's of facts from our side lots of opinions on their side? I'd just be happy to see the facts they base their opinions off of. Doesn't look like any of them want to try and make the case.

Someone at my channel on yt has argued that GZ did not hit that cop, because he plead down... it only counts what your convicted of, I am told. Ok, good, TM was convicted of nothing... innocent till proven guilty. No one has proved his guilt, starting a fight with the guy following him.Modify message

No one proved GZ's guilt on anything either and he didn't "plead down" because he never plead to anything. Whether it's your You Tube mate who said it rather than you, you are spreading it here, and comparing GZ to an "innocent" Trayvon when GZ has never been convicted and is just as innocent as Trayvon.

If the murder charge is dismissed would the bail be automatically readjusted.? If not what would be required?

If the murder charge is dismissed, and nothing is provided to replace it, there will be no pending charge, and Zimmerman is free.

If the state substitutes a manslaughter charge for the murder charge, the bail remains the same. The amount of bail is marginally predicated on the seriousness of the offense; and is more predicated on Zimmerman being a flight risk, as far as the court is concerned, in combination with a financial disincentive that assures he won't flee. The size of the financial disincentive is supposed to be tied to the defendant's wealth and means of income.